Rate of Violence Skyrocketing In Afghanistan
By Nicole Belle Sunday Jun 01, 2008 8:45am
While U.S. hostile fire fatalities in Iraq last month dropped to their lowest level since December, the news has been far grimmer coming out of Afghanistan. In terms of enemy fire, May 2008 was the second deadliest month of the war since hostilities began in Afghanistan shortly after 9/11. This also marked the end of the deadliest 12-month period for U.S. troops in combat in Afghanistan since the war began nearly seven years ago.
14 Americans were killed by hostile fire in Afghanistan last month (equal to the same number killed in June 2006). The deadliest month of combat in Afghanistan for U.S. troops was in June 2005 when 25 died--16 in a single helicopter shoot-down.
While 14 hostile fire fatalities may not seem significant when compared to the fighting in Iraq, there are two facts that we must take into consideration:
1. We have just experienced the deadliest 12-month period of the war in Afghanistan in terms of hostile fire--by far.
99 Americans have been killed in action since 1 June 2007. The previous 12-month high was 70--between 1 June 2005 and 31 May 2006.
2. The hostile fire death rate for American troops in Afghanistan last month was four times that of Iraq.
One out of every 2,500 (.04 percent) Americans in Afghanistan died last month at the hands of the enemy. This is much higher than in Iraq, in which one out of every 10,000 (.01 percent) American troops died.
While hostile fire casualty rates in Iraq have been higher than .04 percent in about half of all months since the invasion, this shows us one fact that cannot be overlooked: The violence in Afghanistan only seems minimal to Americans because there are a mere 33,000 troops there. But the rate of violence there is clearly comparable to that in Iraq--where 155,000 troops are now serving. For those 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, for the first time now, life has become more dangerous than in Iraq.
In a related news story, Mia Farrow's brother, Patrick, penned a scathing letter to the editor over the mysterious non-combat death of their nephew Sgt. Jason Dene, as described in Editor & Publisher:
Whatever the cause, Patrick Farrow feels he knows what really killed his nephew: "Because of the arrogant, corrupt lies of George W. Bush and his neo-con handlers my nephew is dead, and I am mad as hell...Jason Dene was not killed by enemy fire nor friendly fire but by Bush's brutal and cynical stop-loss program."
"Because of Bush's abusive stop-loss policy, Jason had been sent into an unwanted third tour of duty. He was a father of three and could not afford to lose his pension. Some 'volunteer Army'.
"During his three 15-month tours in Iraq, exposure to roadside bombs and other job-related injuries caused Jason to be hospitalized several times for concussion and internal bleeding and other injuries. Recently, Jason's condition was such that the Department of Defense flew him from Iraq to Dover Air Force Base for surgery. He was released from the hospital into the loving arms of the government who sent him directly back into Iraq. He was put on active duty while he was still on a liquid diet, unable to eat solid food because of a throat hemorrhage due to a botched surgery at a military hospital.
"After his second tour Jason returned home with severe mental and physical issues. He was certainly in no condition to be pressed into a third tour. He wanted out of the army. But Jason was a victim of the liar's back-door draft...
"Because of George Bush, the arrogant, the corrupt, the liar, the war criminal, my nephew is dead and my sister and the rest of my family are devastated."
Login or Register to post comments.
Afghanistan, the other forgotten war. When is the last time we heard of Iraq and Afghanistan on MSM? I guess Obama and Hillary are deemed more important. I don't hear a lot about MCCain either. AH MSM... You truly suck!
Why am I hearing this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qSEgA61y0M&feature=related
The Soviets eventually gave up. No one wants a foreign occupying army in their country: they can fight for generations, unless the US plan is genocide. (Which woudn't surprise anyone these days. It's a slow genocide in Iraq.)
The official figures out of Afghanistan are ludicrous, only really keep track of a small area. I had a post about it earlier but as blogspot is bloggered, can't get to it for reference right now. The blog is cabdrollery.
Mccain is ranting if you want to watch him live
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2
forgive me for breaking the rules (i know this is not open...)
Finally got through at blogspot, see http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-lies-in-afghanistan-war.html
Go aheaqd and call me cynical, but could it be that the Bush administration has intentionally allowed this to happen in Afghanistan, so that by directing all efforts toward Iraq, they can claim that the surge is working, in time to affect voter action for the general election?
SSSHHHHHHH! Keep this quite.
This isn't surprising to me but for most folks in the United States, it does come a surprise. There are people today in the United States who actually think that the U.S./Afghan war has been won. Then, when something like this comes up they are shocked and dumbfounded. They watched on television when the Taliban fled in 2001 and 2002 and they thought it was all over. They thought they were witnessing an enemy running away in terror but in reality they were watching the Taliban and others carry out a tactical retreat. The Taliban retreated, regrouped, rearmed, and have been carrying out offensive actions against the U.S. once the U.S. settled into Afghanistan. Its the same tactics they used against the Soviet Union and to great effect. The Afghans do not fight wars in days, weeks, months or even years. They fight wars in decades or generations.
The surge is working...for the fucking Taliban.
Joe O, sad, but true. Why worry about our brave solddiers whan we have 'So you think you can dance.' When I mention the war, I get the glazed look. You know what I mean. The ' I don't want to hear about it because it's depressing.' This is Bush and Co's fault. Remember spend, spend, spend. Now we have a generation who could give a crap. Now if they started the draft. They would jump off their couches in droves. Sigh!
this is what happens when you let a chimpanzee conduct strategic military planning over a 7 year period.
The truly frustrating thing is that most people don't know these things. I can link as many people as I can here but it still won't be a true fraction of the impact MSM could generate in 5 minutes.
It doesn't matter, remember, herr dubyah "thinks" war is "romantic". So, this must be an orgy.
Don't worry their in the last throes.
Edwin Hussein @ 3:
USSR went bankrupt trying to defeat Afghanistan. Reagan just took the credit.
Thanks to C&L and Nicole, the 'Liberal Left's' reporters have never stopped in their duty to find the truth and report on it,compared to the media who have stopped dead to report anything - because we all know both Afghanistan and Iraq are failing.
McCain is going to have his ass handed to soon on Iraq too. The Iraqi people and government are now charging that the US is violating their sovereign status by forcing themselves into their business and the majority numbers are growing to demand that the US leave. When Australia and Britain now side with Iraq against our interference - that's called a 'problem' not 'success', and does verify Democrats and Hagels claims that we are causing more violence than we can prevent.
Another news item worth noting that I've been tracking, is that Syria will now allow the UN to inspect that bogus 'nuclear weapons' site that the US and Israel claimed they had to bomb - in a parlor trick to scare Iran.
So look for new charges that the IAEA and the UN are colluding with the terrorists when they report - Israel and the US weren't telling the truth, again.
Soldiers are dying there because that is their job. They agreed to accept money for their kill or be killed mentality. Screw them, and screw the military industrial complex for turning America into a fascist state.
Underground Pirate @ 19:
When you outsource all the jobs, the only jobs left.........
Don't forget that Canadians are getting killed and wounded in that meat grinder known as Khandahar (South) as well, where no other NATO country will rotate in to.
...And the Taliban is gaining strength in Pakistan.
Thanks a lot George!!</em>
Increases in fatalities should be expected when a new batch of Marines have been dispatched to the country for offensive operations.
harley @ 20:
I hope that this comment isn't against the soldiers. Whether they volunteered or not, they didn't make the decision to go to war. I'd hate to see that we start turning against the soldier for following orders that they must follow to avoid being imprisoned, or having to escape to another country. This war is not their fault. Correct yourself.
The people who've criticized the soldiers on this blog in the past should pay attention:
It's not the soldiers' fault they're there, so stop calling them "baby killers" and other disparaging names.
Pawn @ 23:
I am defending why people join the military. When Walmart opens a new store and 21,000 people apply for 200 jobs, they certainly are not going to hire the just out of high school with no prior training candidate.
harley @ 25:
There is no qualm about your statement, it is the statement that you were quoting above, "They agreed to accept money for their kill or be killed mentality. Screw them, and screw the military industrial complex for turning America into a fascist state." This statement is completely inappropriate, and is bringing back recollections of the Vietnam protest era. It is not the soldiers fault, and they should not be held responsible for this administrations poor decisions.
"We've always been at war with Afghanistan".
I have only a tepid belief that the Dems will end this. Yet, it astounds me that any self respecting american would vote for McCain over any Dem just to make a point, and allow this travesty to continue or even escalate. People like that are no better than the war criminals and war profiteers.
Why couldn't Afghanistan be the example of the flowering democracy that Bush always talked about. If the Iraq war had ever really been about "freedom" or "security", then he would have set the example long before in Afghanistan by making it a prosperous country. It's possible. Look at what we did for Europe after WWII. Look at Israel.
Pawn @ 23:
I agree. This is not their fault. If Bush were to announce that all troops were to be pulled out today and shifted to some other nation or to the United States in a stand down mode then that is what those troops are going to do. They have no say in the matter.
In a way, the same can be said for many Afghans except they have been forced to even more extremes. They are and have been forced to be soldiers of some form or another whether they like it or not. They have always had to pick a side or die. For them, there has always been little to no choice. If it wasn't the British that invaded, then it was the Persians, if it wasn't the Persians then it was the Soviets or it was some civil war. Now, they have to fight against or work with other occupying forces.
Pawn @ 26:
It seems like every day I have to respond to these less than truthful statements. "It is not the soldiers fault." Are you seriously trying to suggest that it is not the soldiers who are pulling the triggers on their weapons at innocent Iraqis or Afghanis? I have used this example before but apparently it bears repeating. If foreign soldiers were to occupy this country and they were breaking down your door or your neighbor's door, would that not be the fault of the soldiers? If you or your neighbor were shot at checkpoints, would you believe that was the fault of some faceless bureaucrat or the soldier who was shooting at you? This just another example of how Americans seem to be devoid of the word empathy in their DNA.
What you and other superpatriots never wish to address is that there are soldiers who have agreed not to be part of an illegal occupation, such as Lt. Ehren Watada and others such as Camilo Mejia and Kevin Benderman, whose consciences would not allow them to take part in the subjugation and brutalization of the Iraqi people, and as a consequence were thrown in jail for their actions. The latter two were also featured in the moving documentary Soldiers of Conscience. These people, along with the other members of the IVAW, should be considered the true heroes of this country. Instead, one finds supposed liberals trying to make excuses for American soldiers who have taken part in the illegal and immoral take over of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I strongly suggest that the flag waving liberals see the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!, which told the story of the GI movement during the Vietnam conflict at military bases both at home and abroad or read David Cortright's classic work Soldiers in Revolt in order to gain an understanding why these heroic [ a word which is all too often needlessly thrown around these days but in this case is entirely justified] and courageous soldiers did what they did. If that were to happen, then perhaps they might finally begin to recognize which soldiers are to be lauded and which soldiers, who blindly follow the orders that they are given, are to be condemned.
Lou @ 28:
flowering democracy?
-failure
flowering poppies?
-success
i would assert that the LAST thing the US and the EU want in Afghanistan is a democracy. democracies don't tend to support being a economic sock money/oil puppet for the rich West. which is the US' longterm vision for afghanistan.
Has everyone seen this?
projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/afghanistan/
Erroll @ 30,
I strongly suggest that the flag waving liberals see the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!, which told the story of the GI movement during the Vietnam conflict at military bases both at home and abroad or read David Cortright’s classic work Soldiers in Revolt
I want to check out that documentary. My brother joined the Army in 1968 to avoid getting drafted. He and thousands of others resisted many aspects of the Army's methods, or were traumatized from the war and ended up addicted or unable to readjust, and were jailed for it. Most people don't know about the many military prison uprisings in the US in 1968 and 1969, and it was a deliberate supression of important news. They were overcrowded with soldiers and the prison conditions rivaled Abu Ghraib.
I had a link to the book and it was the whole text, but Askme.com intruded while I was trying to link it here and now I lost it.
Sorry I guess it's Erroll @ 29.
There was an article in the Chicago Tribune last week titled: "For Afghan Girls, Jail Can Be A Refuge".
Imagine living in a society where, as a young girl, jail is preferable to your home life...and the reasons you go to jail when you're a young girl are for things like protecting yourself from a potential rapist, or running away from home because the males in your family are abusing you.
Yep...Afghanistan...a wonderful place to be!!
Thank you Erroll @ 29 for setting the record straight! As a veteran I can't stand the aurgument "they are only following orders". Our oath wasn't to follow orders but to defend the Constitution of the United States.
An army of one is just a slogan
And a stupid slogan at that.
Erroll @ 29:
I speak on this matter, not being less than truthful, but completely truthful. Many soldiers go into this war disillusioned by the machine that put them there. They are programmed machines trained to do one thing, and that is war, whatever role they play. They do have a tough decision to make in going to war. If they choose not to fight, they are put in jail, will never be able to locate a decent job, and have a criminal history that will affect other facets of their life. Not to mention the dishonorable discharge. If they choose to go to war they have they will have to live with the consequences of both having to kill, and seeing the horror that war causes.
Regardless, the war is the root. There are some bad soldiers that kill for the thrill. That is a small percentage. On behalf of the honorable men and women that do serve, they are doing what they are trained to do. Read what Terrible @ 35 states. For you or I, it is easy to discuss, we don't have to make those decisions today. Regardless, on both sides of the fight, the soldiers are the currency used for political gain by politicians, opponents/proponents of the war, and media discussions. They are already on the frontline of a no-good war, don't put them on the frontline hear at home.
Terrible @ 35:
So do you feel guilty, and that you are to blame for the war? When people come to you and tell you that you had a decision to make, do you just look down and say, "I know...I am a veteran, and it is my fault that people died. I could have refused my orders, but I followed them anyway." Would you have even made that decision if you weren't put into that position? I'm in no means trying to be disrespectful. I'm trying to understand your point of view.
Pawn @ 38:
It turns out that is exactly what I tell someone whenever he or she robotically thanks me for my service when I was in Vietnam. It is the reason that I have PTSD because of the tremendous guilt that I feel for not having disobeyed the orders that I was given, and as a consequence, many innocent Vietnamese people ended up very dead. I also was not vociferous enough in speaking out when I returned to this country.
I am not sure if this can be said enough times. Rent or purchase the documentary Sir! No Sir! or David Cortright's book Soldiers in Revolt. If and when you do, then you should be able to understand why these men and women did what they did back then. Names like Donald Duncan, Howard Levy, Susan Schnall, Kevin Mather, David Cline, should be household names in this country. But, alas, almost no one has heard of these incredibly brave individuals and how they had the courage to stand up to the system. As former Green Beret Donald Duncan said in the film: "The problem I had was realizing that what I was doing was not good. I was doing it right, but I wasn't doing right." Will the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan ever come to this same realization?
Or the words of David Cline, who was seriously wounded in Vietnam: "Your silence is keeping that lie going."
Or the words of the director of the film, David Zeiger, when he said of the soldiers that they "are just as capable as anyone of knowing right from wrong."
Soldiers resist!-by saying NO to the U.S. war machine.
Erroll @ 39:
This is interesting. I agree that if soldiers were to resist, the corporation called the American War Machine would not be able to follow through on it's ambitions, and then would release its wrath on the American population. This would create a Civil/Revolutionary War. It may be long overdue. I can't deny your point. It takes a strong person to stand up and say I refuse when they are facing so much potential backlash.
I guess it gets even deeper into the moral fabric of our country that people are not strong individuals any longer. To expound, weak people are getting into high level offices. Parents are not teaching their children the skills necessary to standup at this point. I don't know the last time you were in high school, but it's been a while for me (I don't have kids). We don't necessarily know what kids are even being taught in history class these days. I still have a hard time pushing the problem onto the soldiers. They have already made their decision. The choice for many was prior to the war. The reasons for enlisting may be questionable, or completely wrong, but they did not create the war. On that, I refuse to place any blame on them for how they got there. They are there because of a corrupt politician that wanted to help himself, and his friends profit. Let's not get distracted from that larger issue.
Pawn at #40
You state that "I still have a hard time pushing the problem onto the soldiers." As I mentioned at comment #29, the accuracy of that statement is seriously in doubt when it is the soldiers themselves who are pulling the triggers against innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. "They have already made their decision." So therefore, according to you, soldiers can never achieve an epiphany regarding the immorality of their actions. That assumption makes absolutely no sense at all, as evidenced by not only the original Winter Soldiers testimony of 1971 but the Winter Soldiers testimony given by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans a few months ago, in which they testified about the the atrocities that they had witnessed and/or participated in while in those countries, just like their predecessors did concerning the atrocities that they had seen or committed while being in Vietnam.
When soldiers enlist today, it does not mean that they leave their brains or their consciences behind in the civilian world. Thankfully, those in the IVAW have acknowledged the wisdom of David Zeiger's words, when he said that the soldiers "are just as capable of anyone of knowing right from wrong."
Afghan insurgents 'on brink of defeat'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2062440/Afghanistan...
Erroll @ 41:
The soldiers did not put themselves there. If this were an honorable war, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. When I say that they already made up their minds, that means that they have already made the decision. Was it a wise decision? That can be argued. I don't challenge their decisions as you do. You say that they have the choice to not pull the trigger and kill innocent Iraqi's. We will have to agree to disagree. I pray that this kind of argument does not lead to soldiers being spit on as they return to the US. Someone like me may return the favor to those that victimize the soldiers. You as a vet know then the extreme training that is done to reformat your frame of mind to tolerate the stresses of war.
I'm not understanding whether you are blaming the soldiers for the war, or for the deaths of Iraqi's. Sure they pulled the trigger, but upon orders. This goes back into standing up for yourself. Are all the soldiers killing innocent people? Are all the people fighting against the US in Iraq fighting because we invaded their country? Would the same people we are fighting be killing each other if we were not present today? We don't know. This is a violent vacuum. What point is there in blaming the soldiers? So they made a choice that you disagree with. They still didn't initiate the war. They are pawns, being used by all the people I listed before (and that includes you and I). Even if there were a large number of opposition among the rank and files, this war would have proceeded, and people would have died. What does arguing the soldiers consciences when they don't make the decision when the war ends? You can come back to me stating that they can drop their guns and roam the desert. Sure they can do that. Sure soldiers can reach an epiphany afterwards, you are a testament to that. Even if you were drafted, you made the decision to allow them to take you across the Pacific. You could have dodged the draft somehow. Fact remains, they would most likely rather not be in the position they are in today. Your argument to put this on the soldiers makes no sense. No matter what movie, documentary, or reading you provide. Soldiers don't start wars, the fight them.
It takes people like you and me to actually get inside the depths of government so these sorts of choices don't have to be made by anybody. War is not necessary, and should be a last resort after dipolmacy. Those that are in power are the true culprits. You can come up with any excuse you want to blame the troops. I pray you remain healthy as you attempt this dialogue with someone that comes home from this needless battle to hear your voice telling them how bad of a person they are. Real classy. If you really think the way you do, and you have truly been through the experiences you portray, you must create some sort of educational piece that will teach soldiers about how they can protect themselves from the attack of the war machine. I hear you rant about their free minds, how are you going to solve the problem? What do these movies propose? Anything, besides just saying no?
#42-Pawn
Your argument, on close inspection, simply collapses. It also has a number of glaring errors. You state in your first paragraph that "I pray that this argument does not lead to soldiers being spit on as they return to the U.S." It appears that you are attempting to perpetuate the myth that circulated during the Vietnam conflict, when it was claimed that returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon when they returned overseas, especially as they were arriving at airports. Again, if you ever actually decide to view Sir! No Sir!, this urban legend is thoroughly debunked in the film by former Vietnam veteran Jerry Lembcke, who has written a book on this very subject.
In your second paragraph, you ask whether "... all the people fighting against the U.S. fighting because we invaded their country." The answer is to that is yes, that is pretty much the case. The overwhelming majority of those who are fighting against the U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq are the resistance fighters attempting to drive the invaders from their land. Only 2 percent of those who are aligned against the U.S and the coalition forces are said to be foreign jihadists. That figure has been put forth by Congressman John Murtha, who has the best connections of any politician with the Pentagon. Others such as military reporter Thomas Ricks of the Washington Post, Senator Evan Bayh, and James Jones have confirmed this number to be true. You may ask, who is James Jones? James Jones was the former commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. This bit of information should not be that surprising. If another country invaded the U.S., then certainly the same thing would happen here, would the vast majority of the people rising up in an effort to expel the foreign invader.
You then ask if "Would the same people we are fighting be killing each other if we were not present today? We don't know?" Actually we do know, as it has been acknowledged by many people, such as former General William Odom, that it is the presence of the United States military that has inflamed the insurgency. It is also the reason why the terrorists have been able to attract so many people to its cause worldwide, because the United States was incredibly stupid to invade Iraq and Afghanistan [said the spider to the fly].
You state that "Even if there were a large number of opposition among the rank and files, this war would have proceeded and people would have died." Later you add, "Soldiers don't start wars, the[y] fight them." What you should strive to do, if I may say, is to learn more about history. If you did [which, again, Sir! No Sir! and the book Soldiers in Revolt point out] you would find out that when many Vietnam veterans returned to this country, they joined and marched next to the anti-war movement [the very crowd that you seem to claim spat upon returning veterans] and by doing that, helped to bring an end to that illegal and immoral war. Besides soldiers fighting in wars, they can also help end them. The best way to bring a war to a halt is to have it happen from within.
This article from the Telegraph today says we are winning in Afghanistan.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2062440/Afghanistan...
How come when I try to post it says "No New Comments!" yet others are posting?
Missions by special forces and air strikes by unmanned drones have "decapitated" the Taliban and brought the war in Afghanistan to a "tipping point", the commander of British forces has said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2024582/posts
I find it interesting when I try to post the link to the original article today in the Telegraph.co.uk which says we are winning in Afghanistan "No New Comments!" pops up. I can make other posts as long as they don't have the link to that story in it. Is there censorship going on here? Why is that link being blocked?
I'm going to agree to disagree, and not get much deeper into this. Sure, spitting on troops wasn't a common occurrence, the fact is, it did happen. Even one soldier is one too many. I understand your argument, but what use does it make to blame the troops. Is it going to end the war today? No! You can ramble on and on about they have the ability to make the choice, and you have not taken into consideration at all in our conversation that politicians send troops to wars. If there were no wars, the troops wouldn't go. I am well aware of vietnam vets returning and protesting the war. Many were put right on their ass by the leadership of the country and forced to be homeless because the leadership of this country did not want to take care of returning vets. Please, let's focus our arguments on the leadership of this country and work to ensure that we don't have corrupted leadership bringing our people into war. Something you did not respond to from my last message is a solution. You offer movies, but they may perhaps offer a biased view of things, as we appear to do today. How would you fix it?
Lou @ 27:
Have you seen some of the Afghan courts sentences in the MSM on some of the petty criminals and other minor types who have broken various Sharia laws and even the odd Afghan journalist sentanced to death merely for being liberal or just reporting some news story.
That flowering democracy has an evil streak in it, as bad as some of the worst nutters in Iran or Saudi Arabia, or any of the other fundie religious governments out there.
Rob @ 47:
My god, that IS interesting
displaced @ 23:
When the moral retards in the mil / contractors stop killing women children babies, and innocent civilians then its time to stop calling them what they are.
Rob @ 47:
this one !
ferrofluid (Obama 08) @ 52:
Yep! That is the link that was being blocked earlier.
ferrofluid (Obama 08) @ 51:
People, beware of the left wing nuts beginning to get stir crazy and poke their heads out of the woodwork. You people wasting your time going after the people that will not realistically be able to end this war should divert your energy to the people that actually make the decisions to bring everyone of those soldiers home. If I may ask one thing of people who believe that the soldiers are at fault, offer a realistic solution to educating these soldiers that they can fight back. How would you improve this besides calling them "baby-killers" "retards", and any other name you might come up with. You are not promoting a healthy argument. Many just say it's common sense. Maybe to you, but others don't share your experiences.
Pawn @ 48:
By the way Erroll@44, by your argument, George Bush as a draft dodger should be respected as a strong man that refused to go to war. The Bush family should then be honored for helping get their son out of the war.
Pawn @ 55:
I see that you are becoming really desperate in order to prop up your rather weak arguments. George w. Bush, Dick [five deferments, other priorities] Cheney, Trent Lott, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay, Mitch McConnell, Ari Fleischer, Karl Rove, Richard Perle, Phil Gramm, John Ashcroft [an amazing seven deferments], Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, as well as the demagogues such as Roger Ailes, George Will, Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, et al, are what are known among veterans as chickenhawks. These hypocrites are quick to advocate war but they made sure that they themselves never came close to a field of combat while wearing a military uniform. They certainly should not be, to use your word, "honored", for not fighting in a war while fervently urging that others fight for alleged patriotic reasons. The ones who certainly should be honored are those who recognize the immorality of war and have fought against these wars from taking place. The names that I have previously mentioned should always be singled out for their hypocrisy. There is a huge difference between a draft dodger and a draft resister.
Regarding your comment at #48, you wish to dismiss the film Sir! No Sir! because it presents a "biased point of view." What it presents is a view that very few Americans are even aware in this country, apparently such as yourself, even thirty five to forty years after the fact. Why are you so fearful of seeing this film? One expects to encounter this mindset on a conservative web site, instead of on a liberal blog.
You ask for a solution to the problem. That is fairly simple and that is for the United States to finally withdraw its forces from the Middle East, which has been the primary reason why the terrorists launched their attacks on 09/11/01. Until that happens, there will continue to be more violence and bloodshed in the Middle East. The United States has no business attempting to rule the world.
Erroll @ 56:
OK, you are really going besides the point and sidestepping important points. I'm glad you responded to the solution. To end the war in Iraq. Have we just wasted a bunch of webtime to come up with that. I think that is the goal of nearly 70% of Americans.
Nobody's trying to avoid a film. I love to learn and will work to find the film. But one or two films is not enough to justify your argument. I'm aiming for you to speak your own mind, not the movie.
The solution I was asking you for was in regards to how to educate soldiers that they should ignore their orders, to inform impressionable youths not enlist in the first place, to inform them that they can immediately throw down their weapons today because the people at home will support their decisions? How do we convince them that they actually have this option? How do we convince them to grow beyond their fears of retribution and imprisonment so that they can do their jobs (please note my sarcasm) and end the war in Iraq? You argue the soldiers are just as guilty of this war as the administration, and are somehow able to stop this themselves. The majority of troops don't look at this as an option. How do you change that mindset? Don't just attack them, bring solutions, real solutions. Otherwise bring your rant to a hate site that I'm sure will love your patronage. You'll have a whole bunch of people there that will support your point of view.
Similar to your response, I'm going to say that an answer is to avoid war all together. It serves nobody but the people who have something to gain out of it. That is the real solution, attack the people that actually sent the soldiers out of this country for their selfish reasons.
I want to be more specific, since I am asking you for a specific solution, as I agree that soldiers are able to make a decision not to partake in the war. I believe that there could be a highly visible non-profit legal service that protects these troops from criminal action, and assist them into an honorable discharge at no cost. This same organization can provide resources to soldiers influencing them not to fight and educating them how to fight for what is morally correct, inform those thinking about enlisting the true reasons why we are in Iraq, and provide aid to vets that feel guilty about the horrors they comitted due to following orders.
The comments about George Bush draft dodging was an extreme jest towards your argument because I'm starting to look at this as ridiculous.
Erroll @ 57:
As provided by fellow C&Lers, a bit of history on mutiny, and the risk soldiers take in mutiny
Pawn
There are a number of avenues open for veterans who are currently in the military to persuade them that they should not be participating in the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. At the risk of belaboring the point, members of Veterans for Peace have been handing out copies of Sir! No Sir! to the rank and file, in order for them to realize that speaking out against an unjust war is what their predecessors did during the Vietnam conflict. They can contact the IVAW so they can understand why those members have decided not to participate against the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. There are hot lines available to those in the military to advise them what their options are if they decide to desert from the military [a tradition which goes back to 1776 and is documented in the book Desertion and the American Soldier 1776-2006 by Robert Fantina]. They can read the book Mission Rejected-U.S. Soldiers Who Say NO to Iraq by Peter Laufer in order to understand that there are other soldiers who also feel the way that they do. They can speak to veterans from other wars, particularly the Vietnam conflict, in order to understand what they had gone through. The VVAW [Vietnam Veterans Against the War] would be especially helpful.
Regarding your link that you provided at comment #59, the film Sir! No Sir! goes into that subject with some depth.
Erroll @ 60:
With that, I say goodnight to you. I'll take a look at what you supplied. This war is not the soldiers burden, no matter what a movie puts out as contrary evidence. Be blessed!
Login or Register to post comments.